yxsamliu wrote: > > This is mostly just a call to coordinate a bit better. I would suggest that > > if the patch author is engaged on the thread, it would make sense to tell > > them the schedule on which you plan to revert so they have an opportunity > > to tell you if that's going to be disruptive. > > This part captures one particular issue with my way of action I happened to > miss. Thanks for putting this clearly @AaronBallman! Coordination was indeed > far from perfect here. And your suggestion totally makes sense. > > > While I realize this is the 'policy', I'm asking for compassion, > > particularly with new developers who are engaging. > > This is also a good point @erichkeane. I'll try to consider this as well.
Any plan to reland this PR? cuDF/hipDF depends on it. Also the subtle difference of behavior about list initialization between clang/gcc causes issues that are difficult to debug. Thanks. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
